ABSTRACT
The effects of IMF conditionalities have been subjects of some controversy. In Chapter 7 we have examined the IMF’s approach to economic stabilisation and discussed some empirical evidence presented to evaluate the effects of these policies. Whereas the evidence presented by Gylfason (1987) and others questioning the effectiveness of the IMF is cast in terms of the short-term programmes of the IMF, this controversy seems especially heated for countries facing acute balance of payments problems and currency crises, as witnessed in 1997 in Korea, Indonesia and Thailand and elsewhere. Stiglitz (2000), for example, supports critics of the IMF who argue ‘…the IMF’s economic “remedies” often make things worse-turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions’. Some academic work also reaches this conclusion. Bordo and Schwartz (2000), for example, conclude, ‘…the recent spate of [IMF] rescues may be the case of the medicine doing more harm than good’ (p. 60). Similar statements by Krugman and other leading economists can be cited.
